Anonymous #2 11w

He was charged with illegal picketing lol. You want dude life in prison for illegal picketing?

-9

Anonymous #4 11w

Probably I just posted it cause I thought it was funny

1

Anonymous #3 11w

He attempted an insurrection…

32

Anonymous #3 11w

I don’t want him to waste my tax dollars if that answers your question. He tried to attack and intimidate our elected (liked them or not leaders)

14

Anonymous #2 11w

Dude’s a nut but what tax dollars did he waste exactly? He was charged for unlawfully picketing inside a building. Not even trespassing. What exactly do you want from a guy with the pettiest of misdemeanors?

-1

Anonymous #4 11w

real twitter and if you look up "john m cameron" it's a bunch of stuff about a guy by that name who was arrested for taking part in the insurrection

1

Anonymous #4 11w

looking at it more he still starts longass tweets with "I'm a J6er" before whining about shit

1

Anonymous #6 11w

I think these are one of those ragebait accounts man.

0

Anonymous #3 11w

I have a feeling that’s misrepresenting what he actually did

9

Anonymous #7 11w

Why would the court and justice dept misrepresent what he did? They went after J6 nuts pretty freaking hard

1

Anonymous #3 11w

Yes giving out misdemeanors to those threatening our elected leaders was hard punishment. Any other jokes?

8

Anonymous #4 11w

yeah you can't be helped

1

Anonymous #2 11w

Bruh you gotta be joshing. They gave 30 days prison time and 3 years probation to a guy they charged with a crime with sentencing guidelines for no jail time. The people who actually did more got harsher punishments because they actually did more. You think because a guy that did less got a lesser sentence means he got off easy? He just didn’t do the crimes you accuse him of lol

1

Anonymous #3 11w

You’re not a real person or at least one with any cognitive ability to contribute to society if you actually believe that

8

Anonymous #2 11w

Why the heck would they go easy on them. Talking about cognitive ability, name one reason why that makes any sense. Only 1/3 of all people charged got charged with a violent offense, do you genuinely believe every person there personally punched a cop?

1

Anonymous #3 11w

They were trying to at best intimidate our elected leaders and at worst harm them. That’s treason. Get that through your thick fucking head

1

Anonymous #2 11w

So answer my question then! Why would the doj go easy on them and not charge them for it?

4

Anonymous #2 11w

And try not to resort to ad hominem again, it’s not pretty

6

Anonymous #3 11w

Not ad hominem if it’s true. Go scarf down some crayon or whatever you morons do

1

Anonymous #2 11w

Funny thing about ad hominem, it actually is still one regardless of whether it’s true or not. At least you learned something new here. I’m sure you’ll do better next time

1

Anonymous #3 11w

Take it from a philosophy major, the only time pointing out fallacies is worthwhile is in formal academic settings. I’m tired of Reddit debate-me-bros learning what logical fallacies are and running them into the ground

1

Anonymous #5 11w

Ah yes, the early 20s philosophy major with an undergraduate degree, thank you for asserting your expertise. Me personally, if you cared about philosophy, I’d hope you’d encourage people to actually talk instead of kick and scream. Why would we only want productive discussion in academic settings? Smart people should get to discuss things and online idiots should get emboldened to regurgitate shit? Never stop calling out people that can’t articulate their own opinions they chose to speak on

1

Anonymous #3 11w

Well you have a very oversimplified (and overconfident) view of fallacies. There are some fallacies that are always invalid (i.e. [a->~b]&[a&b]) but then there are those that can be a valid argument but are commonly used in invalid ways. So, no, calling out fallacies online is not necessarily encouraging more productive discussion. It does make you look like a pompous ass tho, so if you were going for that, good job!

1

Anonymous #3 11w

Also, a fallacy is not the inability to articulate one’s opinion

1

Anonymous #5 11w

We have person a (#2) who made a claim in opposition to me, then resorted to insults instead of talking. We have person b (you Mr. #5) asserting yourself as chief philosopher… instead of saying anything of substance to the conversation you so graciously decided to join. What cordial remarks so I owe either of you at this point? Call me an ass, sure, I’m definitely being one lol. But this is why hurling insults instead of talking is stupid, because there’s nothing productive left to say

1

Anonymous #5 11w

Thank you for again asserting your philosophical dominance over us common folk. That’s not what I said. Resorting to a fallacy is the product of the inability to defend his position here.

1

Anonymous #3 11w

For someone so concerned with fallacious arguments you sure make a lot of them

1

Anonymous #3 11w

And you literally did say they couldn’t articulate their opinion, are you self-illiterate?

1

Anonymous #5 11w

I never said a fallacy MEANT being unable to articulate oneself, I said resorting a fallacy is the result of being unable to articulate oneself. Plus if you think I’m resorting to any fallacies here please share, because while im being a dick yes, my argument with you is based in logic here

1

Anonymous #3 11w

And I’m saying that it is not the result of being able to articulate oneself. I’m not like asserting philosophical dominance, I’m explaining a concept I’m well educated on that you are very clearly not

1

Anonymous #3 11w

All argument is “based in logic”. That doesn’t mean it’s valid or sound logic, but it is still logic

1

Anonymous #5 11w

🤨 Not all argument is based in logic bro? Ad hominem itself is literally resorting to an emotional appeal over a logical/factual appeal. Plus, giving benefit of the doubt to #2 that he’s not a ragebaiter or complete idiot, being unable to articulate your argument is a 100% plausible presumption for resorting to insults. + I called you “asserting your philosophical dominance” sarcastically because what you claim to be so well educated on you’re wrong here. Like straight up

1

Anonymous #3 11w

Fallacies are errors in logical reasoning that lead to invalid logical conclusions. All arguments can be expressed in logical notation, because all arguments are a set of premises leading to a conclusion (or and intermediate conclusion, but I digress). There are even some logical notations that can encompass almost all language. Just because something is logic, doesn’t mean it’s valid, sound, true, good, whatever you wanna call it. You are making a common mistake that people uneducated in formal

1

Anonymous #5 11w

logic make that “logic” must mean a correct and qualitatively good argument

1

Anonymous #3 11w

What exactly is the argument you are making #3? Like what specifically are you making a rebuttal against?

1

Anonymous #3 11w

I know I’m not wrong, and if you need an example of a fallacy you’ve used, try the no true Scotsman, denying the antecedent, and ad hominem

1

Anonymous #7 11w

Qualm with #5 is really just this. Focus on telling off the guy who resorts to insults over substance rather than defending it for whatever bias you have. This turned into a ticky-tacky “WHY did he resort to a fallacy” instead of any sort of argument as to whether #2 did. Because it’s not an argument, he did. So my issue was someone with a super cool undergrad degree doing absolutely nothing productive to a conversation he didn’t have to join if he had nothing to add

1

Anonymous #3 11w

I think people are assuming you are defending what January sixthers did. I think a lot might be getting lost in communication tbh

1

Anonymous #3 11w

I’ll focus on what I please, and you can do the same. Maybe focus on knowing what you’re talking about before you start talking

1

Anonymous #3 11w

And my focus, to be clear, is fools like you talking abt logical fallacies when you clearly don’t even know the first thing abt logic

1

Anonymous #3 11w

You keep coming back and engaging so you can’t be that smart. I’ve literally told you i’m just going to berate you and have continued to do so yet here you are again.

1

Anonymous #2 11w

“I literally told you I’m gonna berate you” No you didn’t. You can’t rewrite history like you being soft and dense was a tactical move lol. “You keep coming back and engaging” Um, yeah. You seem to think hurling insults until someone stops responding is winning. It isn’t lol. I genuinely do not care. Still had more fun with #5 tho, you’re just kinda a pussy ngl

1

Anonymous #3 11w

Is getting dog-walked and being unable to refute any of my categorically correct statements your idea of fun, dimwit?

1

Anonymous #3 11w

Ahh fk that was another loser. You almost got me there but then you assumed I haven’t won already because I’m *checks notes* arguing for charging people who attacked our elected representatives with treason? Wtf is wrong with you

5

Anonymous #2 11w

Hey #5 can we get a moral grandstanding + moving the goalpost check? I never argued against that lol, all I said was that if this guy had done what you say he did, the justice dept. would have tried to charge him with it. But they didn’t. Because he didn’t.

1

Anonymous #3 11w

was he not a January sixther? I am confused. If he didn’t do that, why would he post this in the first place

1

Anonymous #3 11w

The guy was a J6er, I’ve maintained this stance throughout this “conversation.” That is what the original comment you responded to was about. They all should have been charged. Not my fault Biden’s justice department completely failed in doing their job.

1

Anonymous #7 11w

If you want to argue all 10,000 people who merely showed up to the capitol are unpatriotic and psychotic, that’s certainly an argument. But if you want to argue that simply showing up made you guilty in the eyes of the law of treason, you’re delusional lol. This guy walked through an open door and left when the cops told him to leave. He was given a harsher sentence than sentencing guidelines suggest. What more do you want from a guy who literally just illegally picketed?

1

Anonymous #7 11w

Such a dangerous precedent to set, do you really want the government to be able to put 8k people to death just because they were near 2k people who committed crimes? You want a fascist Trump government to have that kind of legal power?

1

Anonymous #3 11w

That is unironically certainly an argument. They didn’t “walk through an open door” they didn’t “leave when asked to” because if they did they would have never entered the building. Did you already get your daily dose of Faux News or are you still awaiting your arguments for the day?

1

Anonymous #2 11w

You keep saying “they.” We’re talking about a single individual who made a twitter post. This is what he did. This is what the DOJ alleged that he did. This is not a generalization, this is not hyperbole, this is literally what THIS GUY did

1

Anonymous #3 11w

Hey #3, they were all there, they were all at least complicit. There isn’t gray area in treason

1

Anonymous #2 11w

You can’t just call any person who challenges your idea that each of the 10k people there broke a window and punched a cop when only ~2k even went inside. And you think that even every single person that entered broke a window and punched a cop?

1

Anonymous #3 11w

They all committed the same crime. This is what he said, not for a fact what he did. This guy is a traitor and you are starting to sound an awful lot like one

1

Anonymous #2 11w

Again, if that’s a power you want to give to Fascist Trump to use too then sure, argue for that. But I know you don’t. You yourself know you’re arguing for something you don’t want as a norm in our justice system

4

Anonymous #2 11w

This is what the literal court said he did bro

1

Anonymous #3 11w

It’s not my idea you brainwashed psyco, it’s reality. He committed treason, you literally said and I quote “this guy walked through an open door.” So you’re saying he entered the building and we all know it was with the intention to at minimum intimidate our elected representatives. They didn’t stop the others from doing so. If you and your buddy rush a cop but only he shoots them, guess what, you’re both getting charged. That’s how it works

1

Anonymous #2 11w

Hmmm now I wonder, if that’s how it works, and that’s what he did, why didn’t they charge him with more?

1

Anonymous #3 11w

Nobody has attempted anything remotely similar so that’s not really relevant, and he should have been charged too

1

Anonymous #3 11w

I don’t give a fuck, the court also said the DOJ had to release the Epstein files and they didn’t, a court charged trump with 34 felonies and nothing happened. The courts are as flawed as the texture of your brain

1

Anonymous #3 11w

Literally already explained that so you don’t have to wonder

1

Anonymous #2 11w

What you’re advocating for is a new judicial system. And that’s okay, that’s your right to want a new one. But our current one worked as intended. Trump pardoning the ones convicted of the more violent offenses was stupid, but well within the law

1

Anonymous #3 11w

I’m advocating for a judicial system with a spine that doesn’t play politics to “keep the peace.” Pardons should not be for traitors, they should be for those who committed crimes as a necessity to preserve national defense. Not for your son, or your family, or some guy who bribed you.

1

Anonymous #2 11w

Agreed. The pardon system is wonky. But as it stands, ultimately the president can choose whether to do it or not. And I should note, there was an entire coup in Seattle in 2020 called CHAZ/CHOP. I think there were be pretty serious outrage if we just charged and executed all thousand or so people who lived in that area just for being there

1

Anonymous #3 11w

I don’t get what exactly you have a problem with. I feel like 30 days is a pretty light sentence. I get what ur saying—for example, they just sentenced a dude to 30 years in prison because of an ICE protest that he didn’t even attend. That’s fucked up. But 30 days??? That’s nothing considering what happened on January 6th and the fact that he directly participated in it

6

Anonymous #3 11w

Which is stupid and outdated if our politicians care more about playing politics than serving the American people. They should be invalidated, a pardon with no check shouldn’t exist. The residents in the area literally petitioned for the city to interfere… but the organizers should have been charged. You think this is some great gotcha? Fuck em all

1

Anonymous #7 11w

What you think he did and the magnitude of what you think he did aside, a court weighed what he did + the evidence, and gave him a plea deal. For what they charged him with, 30 days and 3 years probation is an objectively harsh sentence. Because there are actual sentencing guidelines that give us that baseline

1

Anonymous #2 11w

You just proved my point lol. 8k out of 10k people who were there either left, did nothing illegal, or sought help. The leaders of Jan6 got sentenced to 18+ years in prison. But you advocated for every one of them to be tried as a traitor

1

Anonymous #3 11w

The court was playing politics, it was abundantly obvious under Biden the matter was pursued to the minimum. 3 years probation is a stern talking to in comparison to what the actual charges and sentence should have been

1

Anonymous #3 11w

But it’s obviously more serious than just illegal picketing. Do you agree with the guy getting sentenced to 30 years for an ICE protest he didn’t even attend & are you also upset about that

1

Anonymous #3 11w

No, those are residents who lived in the area before and after and were victims of the Chaz thing. It’s laughable you actually try to argue those 8k were just innocent bystanders. To kill a weed you don’t cut off the stem you burn the roots. The roots supply the weed with nutrients and grow it back

1

Anonymous #3 11w

And before you try to go there, attacking our elected leaders and our elections is not a protected speech, treason is not protected by the constitution

1

Anonymous #7 11w

Obviously I’m against it lmao. Why does this have to turn into a game of whataboutism? You are against getting 30 years for an ICE protest someone didn’t attend, but then #2 is advocating for the DOJ to be able to arbitrarily try people as traitors without evidence when he, not the court, determines an individual action to be treason. It can’t go both ways

1

Anonymous #3 11w

Without Evidence?! We all saw what happened you dipshit.

1

Anonymous #2 11w

You’re generalizing again. I’m talking about individuals. You’ve clarified again and again that you want to lump 10k people together while I’ve clarified again and again that when you get tried in court you get tried for the actions YOU did. Attacking is an action. If 8k people didn’t do said action, then you can’t try them for doing that action. You’re advocating for authoritarianism in arbitrarily throwing people in jail for the crime of proximity

1

Anonymous #3 11w

WE ALL SAW IT?! If you are cognitively unable to put aside your political opinions and see what is plainly in view you have no business being involved in society, you need a caregiver and placement in a full time care center where your delusions can be managed by a professional trained in psychosis

1

Anonymous #2 11w

Sigh, I really don’t get how you don’t see what you’re doing. You’re telling me you saw John M. Cameron break down the capitol door, punch a cop and a congressman, and break a window on his way out?

1

Anonymous #3 11w

I saw him in a crowd of people cheering for it, pushing him on, a crowd calling for the death of Mike Pence. So yes, yes I did. I’m concerned that you don’t see it.

1

Anonymous #2 11w

So the only thing you saw him do was… illegal picketing. I’ll give you this at, before the plea there were 4 charges (none of which violent): Entering a restricted building Disorderly conduct in a restricted building Disorderly conduct in a Capitol building Picketing in a capitol building

1

Anonymous #3 11w

God you really are incapable of talking past your faux news talking points.. unfortunately I can no longer tell you what I think you should do so I’ll go with go fuck yourself

1

Anonymous #2 11w

You’re obsessed with painting me as right wing when I’m not lol. You’re the only one that’s been talking buzzwords and emotionally driven argument. I quite literally just don’t want the government to be able to put you to death without proving you deserve it. Crazy that you disagree

1

Anonymous #3 11w

I do generally agree with you that someone who was just there and not as involved should not face overly harsh punishment, I just am surprised to hear that some people are mad about him getting sentenced to 30 days. What he did is pretty objectively more serious than what normal illegal picketing in a capitol building entails. They could have charged him with so much more (like the example of the ICE protest) and didn’t.

1

Anonymous #3 11w

I think it might help if you didn’t position yourself as being so opposed to the idea that jan 6thers should be held accountable. I think people would be more open to seeing where you are coming from. I don’t rly disagree with you outside of that

1

Anonymous #7 11w

Point being is that they probably didn't charge him with more because they couldn't. Other people did get charged more. And some people get charged less. I'm not even advocating for him to have gotten less Imao, Im just saying in what world do yikyak freaks (myself included) know more about sentencing this guy than the freaking doj who brought the case against him. There's no incentive to go easy on him. The plea deal was the "going easy," + even if they didn't, all charges were misdemeanors

2

Anonymous #3 11w

Proofs on tape bud, the only people who disagree with it are right wing or “centrists” aka right wingers who are too cowardly to admit it

1

Anonymous #2 11w

Hey #5, can we get that Ad Hominem, No True Scotsman, and Genetic fallacy check here again?

1

Anonymous #3 11w

Hey #5 can you let me suckle your teet, and fill the void in my heart left by two parents who never gave a damn about me

1

Anonymous #3 11w

Hey #3 how does it feel to be a miserable traitorous piece of shit who’s future children will want nothing to do with if by the off chance you find someone to reproduce with your pathetic self?

1

Anonymous #3 11w

That’s fair, i think I get where you’re coming from now. I just think the fact that you responded the way you did in the first comment made it seem like you are just defending him and what jan sixthers did & that you think they shouldn’t be held accountable. At least to me, your point wasn’t immediately clear and i felt inclined to argue with you because of the way you phrased some things initially

6

Anonymous #3 11w

Leave the queen out of this

1